4 ms·

If there is no tracking then doesn't the boy being kidnapped lose?

jtbayly 3y ago
No. There wasn't tracking in this case. This is the same sort of argument used to get rid of encryption, among many other privacy invasions. If you want to put a tracker in your car, that's up to you. Should the federal government mandate trackers in every car so they can always find any vehicle? "Think of the children!" I am thinking of the children. Having some semblance of life outside of Big Brother's watchful eye is essential for the children.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Should the federal government mandate trackers in every car so they can always find any vehicle? This is a red herring. The federal government doesn't mandate this. You said "if you want to put a tracker in your car, that's up to you." People are choosing to put trackers in their cars. Honestly, as someone who is fairly strict on matters of privacy, I'm fine with a tracker in my car. I don't drive it that often. And when I do, it's around town.
  - jtbayly 3y ago
    No. They aren't. VW is. And VW, not the owner of the car, is controlling that tracking. I'm arguing against a comment that implied tracking is good, even if it is controlled by others, because it might save a child. The best version of such a system is if it is owned by the government, not some company trying to make money off of it, so that's the version I decided to argue against. That's not a red herring. It's steelmanning.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > They aren't. VW is. A private company. From whom a person decided to buy a car. Hyundai, Kia, Mazda and Nissan make cars without trackers or even GPS. That's obviously not most consumers' preference. > best version of such a system is if it is owned by the government I strongly disagree. That said, if someone wants to install a government tracking device on their car, I suppose I'm not against it. (Didn't you start by arguing against mandated surveillance?)
      - jtbayly 3y ago
        > Didn't you start by arguing against mandated surveillance? Yes. That’s the point of steelmanning. Put forward the best argument of your opposition. Then tear it down.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - barbariangrunge 3y ago
        Kias get stolen so often you can't insure them in some places; hyundai's have that "catch on fire spontaneously" controversy, and that steel shavings in the engine problem; nissan has their infamous CVT transmissions. I don't know much about mazda. It's hard to find a reliable car. Last time I dug into the subject it was a stress-nightmare
        prewett 3y ago
        Honda and Toyota are the canonical reliable cars, I thought that was well-known, so not sure how finding a reliable car is difficult. I associate Kia and Hyundai with inexpensive, so that wouldn't be my first choice for reliable. (My two Hondas have been fantastic. I bought my Honda Fit used, and from 75k miles to 150k miles I have had no problems at all, no maintenance required besides oil changes. (I suspect the clutch is going to need to be replaced soon, though.)

No. There wasn't tracking in this case. This is the same sort of argument used to get rid of encryption, among many other privacy invasions. If you want to put a tracker in your car, that's up to you. Should the federal government mandate trackers in every car so they can always find any vehicle? "Think of the children!" I am thinking of the children. Having some semblance of life outside of Big Brother's watchful eye is essential for the children.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Should the federal government mandate trackers in every car so they can always find any vehicle? This is a red herring. The federal government doesn't mandate this. You said "if you want to put a tracker in your car, that's up to you." People are choosing to put trackers in their cars. Honestly, as someone who is fairly strict on matters of privacy, I'm fine with a tracker in my car. I don't drive it that often. And when I do, it's around town.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  No. They aren't. VW is. And VW, not the owner of the car, is controlling that tracking. I'm arguing against a comment that implied tracking is good, even if it is controlled by others, because it might save a child. The best version of such a system is if it is owned by the government, not some company trying to make money off of it, so that's the version I decided to argue against. That's not a red herring. It's steelmanning.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > They aren't. VW is. A private company. From whom a person decided to buy a car. Hyundai, Kia, Mazda and Nissan make cars without trackers or even GPS. That's obviously not most consumers' preference. > best version of such a system is if it is owned by the government I strongly disagree. That said, if someone wants to install a government tracking device on their car, I suppose I'm not against it. (Didn't you start by arguing against mandated surveillance?)
    - jtbayly 3y ago
      > Didn't you start by arguing against mandated surveillance? Yes. That’s the point of steelmanning. Put forward the best argument of your opposition. Then tear it down.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - barbariangrunge 3y ago
      Kias get stolen so often you can't insure them in some places; hyundai's have that "catch on fire spontaneously" controversy, and that steel shavings in the engine problem; nissan has their infamous CVT transmissions. I don't know much about mazda. It's hard to find a reliable car. Last time I dug into the subject it was a stress-nightmare
      - prewett 3y ago
        Honda and Toyota are the canonical reliable cars, I thought that was well-known, so not sure how finding a reliable car is difficult. I associate Kia and Hyundai with inexpensive, so that wouldn't be my first choice for reliable. (My two Hondas have been fantastic. I bought my Honda Fit used, and from 75k miles to 150k miles I have had no problems at all, no maintenance required besides oil changes. (I suspect the clutch is going to need to be replaced soon, though.)